Freedom of religion

The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --John 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--Sub Zenyth 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Is America really a Christian nation?

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
--Moderatedemocrat 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

The United States may have a Judeo-Christian cultural heritage, but there are no Judeo-Christian principles (unless you choose to count slavery) in the Constitution. The government of the United States of America is distinctly secular in origin. The Mayflower Compact, while for religious ends, used what would become the Enlightenment principle of the Social Contract as a basis of government. Rdsmith 10:31 (EST), 8 March 2012

Spreading democracy

The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --Jack 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

"greatest"

The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --Joobs 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

PGA

I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? Human 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Political Parties

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. GodlessLiberal 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("divided government"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on Political Parties in the U.S. would be a good thing? Human 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Background

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. Starfleet7 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

-

I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. Human 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

-

The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. Stile4aly 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

-

By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, some people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? Human 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

-

I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.Stile4aly 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

-

Reversion of this section by RobS?

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. Human 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

sysop

User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [1] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [2] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,

"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases Dominionist, argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.

-

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... Human 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

sysop

This paragraph,

"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by Thomas Jefferson, whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This Free Exercise Clause of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the judiciary in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious minorities in the United States.

appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. RobS 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Evenning RobS

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
Starfleet7 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

Earlier history

-

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--1048247 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --Aulis Eskola 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Hello RobS & CPAdmin

Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. Starfleet7 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

Map?

Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed explaining?Human 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, wouldn't this article be better with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. Human 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

See below about a list of States. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? Starfleet7 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Greatest economy

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.

The is a list of per capita income, which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?stevendavy.

Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).stevendavy 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

Republic vs. Democracy

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. Scorpio 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. Scorpio 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
ATang 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Summary Table

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) ATang 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. ATang 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. ATang 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

English as official language?

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. Prosody 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

You are correct. its not an official language yet. Bohdan 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the official language. There is a taxobox entry tagged language. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.

We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the pluralism vs. particularism conflict. --Ed PoorTalk 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Category

"The United States invented popular parties in the 1790s"

This phrase definitely needs clarifying. It's clearly not true that political parties were an American invention - the Whig and Tory parties came into being in Britain in 1678, over 100 years before the emergence of American parties. Perhaps it should be rephrased somewhere along the lines of "Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s."

Article not completed?

I am surprised that the article seems to not be completed yet, considering this is an American website. It kind of throws in a bunch of the 1800s into the expansion section, and doesn't go into the Civil War, imperialism, World War I, so on and so forth. Obviously articles for all those aforementioned sections exist here, some being quite lengthy, so I will gladly start to add more to it.

My concern though is simply that the page is not completed, am I missing something? I won't edit it if the page is supposed to be this way. Sol1221 18:26, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Are you here to contribute or to nitpick? DouglasA 18:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)

I am here to contribute and of course I am willing to. I wouldn't call what I wrote "nitpicking" simply pointing out that the page was lacking and incomplete. My concern was that there might be a reason it was incomplete; at the top of this talk page there is a banner saying "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism," so I wasn't really sure if the article was being rewritten by someone after some vandalism, or whatever. Sol1221 18:32, 22 February 2010 (EST)

As I can see from your edit history, you're much interested in defending liberals and arguing than actually contributing to the encyclopedia. If you're not willing to do so, I suggest you go to wikipedia. DouglasA 18:34, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Please, just address my concern. I am not here to argue or nitpick and that argument where I "defended liberals" was simply a mistake on my part where I WAS nitpicking. I don't consider myself a liberal, and I really just want to see if I have Conservapedia's blessing in filling out this page.